The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced yesterday that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 would be shared by Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change
But the intrinsic assumption of that statement is that the theory of anthropogenic global warming has been proven and that evidence accrued in recent years has only bolstered the conclusion that man is causing global warming. In fact, the reverse has been true.
The attempted re-label – “climate change” – is in itself an admission by proponents of a weakness in the theory. But more substantively, problems have arisen in several components of the “evidence” to support the theory that the greenhouse gases generated by man are causing the planet’s temperature to rise.
Let’s back up and start with what we know:
> The Earth is warming. Since 1860 when man began putting all those icky fossil fuels into the air, the Earth’s average temperature has risen less than one degree centigrade. [Not per year. For that 147 year span.] > Man has been generating greenhouse gases. Responsibility for the generation of greenhouse gases is apportioned thusly: Mother Nature 94% ~ man 6%.
Now, the theory of AGW is that man, with the 6% of greenhouse gases he contributes, caused that rise in temperature. And AGW computer models predict that man’s 6% will cause a further rise of 4 to 7 degrees fahrenheit over the coming century, with the attendant melt of certain ice caps and the well publicized projected rise in sea levels.
“Houston, we have a …”
… several, actually.
> With the method of data collection; more specifically, the location of temperature sensor stations. Wish I could tell you more about this problem but
the NCDC removed all website access to station site locations, citing “privacy concerns.” Without this data (which had been public for years), the validation effort was blocked.
> With the computer models, the scientific crux of AGW. These models do not (because they cannot) factor in the impact, either way, of clouds on the global temperature. Even more scary, they do not “predict” observed conditions.
> With how high we think sea levels will go. Two of the darlings of AGW, Dr. James Hansen and the IPCC, disagree.
In short, it is clear that the case against man as the cause of global warming is seriously flawed. Further, the above list of flaws, by no means comprehensive, also demonstrates that a non-scientist can easily ascertain the existence of such weaknesses.
The Nobel Committee, then, could have done a modicum of their own research on AGW as a function of weighing the worthiness of all nominees. They did not do so. The result is not only damage to their own credibility but the further promotion of a far from proven theory for which draconian solutions are being proposed and even legislatively considered.